This course will introduce you to some of the main areas of research in contemporary philosophy. Each module a different philosopher will talk you through some of the most important questions and issues in their area of expertise. We’ll begin by trying to understand what philosophy is – what are its characteristic aims and methods, and how does it differ from other subjects? Then we’ll spend the rest of the course gaining an introductory overview of several different areas of philosophy.
Topics you’ll learn about will include:
Epistemology, where we’ll consider what our knowledge of the world and ourselves consists in, and how we come to have it;
Philosophy of science, where we’ll investigate foundational conceptual issues in scientific research and practice;
Philosophy of Mind, where we’ll ask questions about what it means for something to have a mind, and how minds should be understood and explained;
Political Philosophy, where we'll investigate whether we have an obligation to obey the law;
Moral Philosophy, where we’ll attempt to understand the nature of our moral judgements and reactions – whether they aim at some objective moral truth, or are mere personal or cultural preferences, and;
Metaphysics, where we’ll think through some fundamental conceptual questions about free will and the nature of reality.
The development of this MOOC has been led by the University of Edinburgh's Eidyn research centre.
To accompany 'Introduction to Philosophy', we are pleased to announce a tie-in book from Routledge entitled 'Philosophy for Everyone'. This course companion to the 'Introduction to Philosophy' course was written by the Edinburgh Philosophy team expressly with the needs of MOOC students in mind. 'Philosophy for Everyone' contains clear and user-friendly chapters, chapter summaries, glossary, study questions, suggestions for further reading and guides to online resources. Please click "Start Here" and navigate to the "Optional Reading" page for more information.

AR

I found this course incredibly stimulating. A wonderfully structured introduction to European philosophy. All modules well presented. How lucky we are to have learning like this at our fingertips.

SD

Jul 04, 2019

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled Star

This course is my first ever serious attempt to know Philosophy and it has been an excellent opportunity to know about different facets of modern Philosophy. I am curious to know more now! Thanks!

レッスンから

Do We Have an Obligation to Obey the Law?

(Dr. Guy Fletcher) The laws of a state govern what we can and cannot do within that state. But do we have an obligation to obey those laws? In this module, we'll discuss this question, together with some of the main positions that philosophers have developed in response to it. We'll start off by examining what obeying the law means exactly. Then we'll look at three factors that might form the basis of an obligation to follow the law. Finally, we'll discuss what the consequences might be if the problem can't be solved.

講師

Dr. Dave Ward

Professor Duncan Pritchard

Professor Michela Massimi

Full Professor

Dr. Suilin Lavelle

Lecturer in Philosophy

Dr. Matthew Chrisman

Reader in Philosophy

Dr. Allan Hazlett

Dr. Alasdair Richmond

Dr.

Guy Fletcher

Lecturer

Elinor Mason

Senior Lecturer

字幕

So, a third possible ground of philosophical obligation is fairness. This theory attempts to ground political obligation in something about fairness. We can provide a precise statement of such a theory as follows. Citizens are a part of cooperative enterprises that are mutually beneficial and fair. Because they're part of such schemes, such enterprises, they have an obligation to obey the rules of those schemes or enterprises. So that's quite abstract. Let me make it less abstract by giving you an example. We can think of this theory on the model of a washing up scheme. Suppose you live in a house with six other people and each person does the washing up on an appointed day of the week. It's now Sunday, your day for doing the washing up. You have an obligation to do the washing up. Why is that? Well, what's the ground of that obligation? It's because you're part of a fair scheme of cooperation and doing the washing up is necessary to play your part in that scheme and to assure it's continuation. The famous theory of political obligation gives an analogous account of how we can have an obligation to obey the law. This theory has some similarities to the benefit theory that we considered earlier. Where it differs, is that the fairness theory only applies to benefits that are delivered through mutually beneficial cooperative schemes. This difference means that the theory can explain why we don't have an obligation to obey corrupt or unjust states, even if such states happened to benefit us. We lack an obligation in such cases precisely because such states are not fair, just cooperative schemes. So, what weaknesses are there in the fairness theory? What grounds might be good for rejecting it? Here are two. The first is that when one's part of a fair cooperative venture that generates obligations, one is typically voluntarily joined that scheme. In the case of the washing up scheme, you consented to being part of that scheme, the distributing, the washing up. But states are not like this at all. We're born into states and have no choice whether or not we're part of them. As we saw earlier in connection with consent theories, we're limited in our ability to leave the state and that makes another difference with the washing up scheme. There's a real worry for this fairness theory of political obligation, is that it's inapplicable in the case of states. Where this is because obligation-generating cooperative schemes, things that one must actively join, whereas one automatically becomes a member of a state at birth. So far, we've briefly considered three of the main accounts of how the problem of political obligation can be solved. None of these theories has been decisively rejected. Each has its merits and could mount replies to the objections that we've thought about and there are other theories of political obligation out there that we should consider. Nevertheless, in the next part of the lecture, I want to explain what would happen, what would follow, if no theory of political obligation was correct or what would happen if the problem of political obligation cannot be solved.